A lot of the designations, for any device with a number, is purely on whim, to make it sexy or to sell the program. I am /sure/ the M9 is a "9" because it was always gonna be a NATO spec 9mm. Since then they have just been adding one to all other pistol designations, so they look boring, but the numbers before that don't make any series sense.
The Abrams is a typical case, where we stopped the numbering scheme just to make it sound cool. M1 is neater than M... 70-something, I suppose. Also, maybe we were worried about confusion with soviet numbers, which are year-related.
Remember fighter numbers stopped in the mid 100s, (F-105, -106...) and started again with 1 (ish). The first one you have proably heard of was the F-4 Phantom II. A neat trick with this was the F-117; everyone thought it would be the next-in-line: F-19, but they tricked us by going back to the old scheme.
For large numbers, like the current MGs, I want some explanation, though. Why is the M-240 much newer-adopted than the "9-higher" M-249?